To get Congress to pass his five-year budget plan earlier this year, President Clinton had to cut a deal with freshmen Democrats.The freshmen, who had campaigned on the populist bandwagon of slashing the federal deficit and ending business as usual in Washington, had plenty of room to maneuver. Polls were showing that Americans wanted budget cuts first, before taxes were raised.Clinton promised the freshmen more cuts to come this year, and with that, Congress narrowly approved his taxes-first-cuts-later budget.

We asked you: To cut the deficit, should Republi- cans go along with closing tax loopholes? YES: 87% NO: 13% Get rid of tax loopholes If the logic of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts stimulating the economy worked, we would be rolling in jobs and prosperity. The U.S. tax burden is at its lowest level since 1958, and the wealthy are getting more so by the moment. At the same time, the middle class is suffering more. So tell us, why should we be in favor of allowing the tax loopholes to stand when this is the situation?

The Senate on Friday rejected President Bush's proposal to let Americans earmark 10 percent of their taxes to cut the deficit after a key lawmaker argued it could wipe out government. ''It's a gimmick,'' Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said derisively. If taxpayers took the idea seriously, he said, ''There'd be no federal government. We'd have to turn out the lights at the Capitol.'' The Senate turned down the proposal on a procedural vote, 58-36. Bush proposed the measure in his Aug. 20 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

Poverty can affect kids' reading skills What I know about teaching reading you could stick in your ear. However, I know how to read my emails from reading expert Stephen Krashen, who probably knows more about teaching reading than anyone else south of the North Pole. And I know what Krashen would say if he read in the Sentinel, "Orange's 3rd-graders still struggling to read" (Sunday). He would say, of course, they're struggling. Why wouldn't they? Many come from homes where they weren't read to much, if at all; where they don't see anyone reading; where there are few to no books; where there's no money for newspapers or magazines.

INCLUDE THEM OUT. Reducing the federal deficit is a worthy government goal but not that worthy. Business lobbyists don't want Canadian exporters to suffer just to cut the deficit. Canadian Export Association spokesman Jim Moore has complained to the Commons committee on External Affairs about the Conservative government's decision to close several diplomatic posts, reduce staffing in others and cut funding for the External Affairs international trade development programs.

In a Tuesday article, "Orlando considers increase in taxes," Rich McKay writes that city leaders raised the idea that increasing property taxes could ward off a potential $27 million deficit. My, what an interesting concept: Increase your income to pay your bills. Please, let's keep this a secret; don't let word of this new idea get out to the general public. Our elected president and governor know for a fact that the tax-increase concept does not work. The only way properly to pay your bills is to give tax cuts to the rich and they will help cut the deficit.

It's hard to keep a straight face when lawmakers spout about how hard they're trying to cut the deficit. Their true timidity was demonstrated again a few days ago when the Senate flinched at the chance to cut the $4.5 billion revenue-sharing program for local governments by $570 million. This is a program that no longer can be afforded. But only 37 senators could be rounded up to vote for the cut.The full Senate -- under strong pressure from mayors across the country -- agreed to cut only half that amount.

The latest projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office point out the folly of President George W. Bush's call for making permanent the tax cuts passed in the past three years. According to the CBO, the federal government could go $5 trillion deeper into debt over the next decade if Congress heeds the president's call. Even if the cuts expire, the red ink would still rise at least $2.4 trillion during the period. While the CBO predicted that keeping the tax cuts would add jobs and increase business investment, it also forecast that the resulting deficits would reduce national savings, decrease productivity and slow economic growth.

The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law requires a balanced budget by 1991. It includes across-the-board cuts in scores of government programs if the president and Congress do not agree on a budget.President Reagan's proposed budget includes nominal new taxes but meets the Gramm-Rudman target by slashing or eliminating dozens of government programs. Opponents say a better way is to raise taxes and thus avoid the drastic program cuts.What do you think? Are you willing to sacrifice government services to help cut the deficit?

President Clinton last week warned that Americans may be asked to make more sacrifices in light of higher projections for the federal deficit. While he outlined the elimination of 100,000 federal jobs as a way to save billions of dollars, the president hinted that the middle-income group, the wealthy and corporations may face higher taxes in his economic plan. The deficit is seen as a threat to the country's economic viability - as it grows, more money will be needed to pay it off and less will be available for schools, defense, social programs and other needs.

ST. CLOUD -- Cocoa's offensive highlights included a few Wayne Younger passes, a couple Demetrice Whitaker catches and two one-play touchdown drives that lasted a combined 17 seconds. But the Tigers' most important drive in their 35-25 victory over St. Cloud on Friday night didn't end with an end zone celebration and didn't feature the kind of flash with which Cocoa (6-1, 2-0, Class 3A, District 8) pulled away. Instead, the methodical 14-play march -- aided by a key fourth-down conversion on Cocoa's own 35 -- ate nearly six minutes off the clock.

In a Tuesday article, "Orlando considers increase in taxes," Rich McKay writes that city leaders raised the idea that increasing property taxes could ward off a potential $27 million deficit. My, what an interesting concept: Increase your income to pay your bills. Please, let's keep this a secret; don't let word of this new idea get out to the general public. Our elected president and governor know for a fact that the tax-increase concept does not work. The only way properly to pay your bills is to give tax cuts to the rich and they will help cut the deficit.

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David D. Kirkpatrick, the New York Times, March 10, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans, fearing some of their members will balk at extending President Bush's tax cuts in the face of the ballooning federal deficit, pushed back Wednesday against the White House plan, offering a budget proposal for 2006 that would undo more than a fourth of the cuts Bush has requested. The Senate's budget proposal calls for $70.2 billion in tax cuts over the next five years, as opposed to the $100 billion the White House is seeking. It does not specify which cuts will be extended or which taxes might be restored, but Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

WASHINGTON -- The budget President Bush will present to Congress today will show the federal deficit cut in half by the time he leaves office in four years. At least technically it will. Achieving that goal relies on where the budget math starts and stops, how things get counted and what gets left out. When Bush took office in 2001, the United States had experienced a four-year string of budget surpluses. That changed quickly as the economy slowed, tax rates were cut and spending in the war on terrorism skyrocketed.

WASHINGTON -- A recovering economy has modestly improved the federal government's expected deficit this year, but the government's long-term fiscal picture has only grown worse, largely because of an anticipated surge in defense spending, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday. The deficit for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, will reach $422 billion, $46 billion more than last year's record level, but a $56 billion improvement from the budget office's forecast in March.

WASHINGTON -- The House on Thursday passed a $2.4 trillion budget for fiscal 2005 that Republicans say will cut the deficit in half in three years, extend some tax cuts and increase spending on defense and homeland security. The House budget, like the Senate version passed earlier this month, closely reflects President Bush's wishes, although it calls for quicker reduction of the deficit -- expected to hit a record $477 billion this year -- and offers fewer tax cuts in the next five years than Bush sought.

U.S. Sen. Lawton Chiles Tuesday said he is trying to win President Reagan's support for a ''deficit-reduction tax'' but that the Iran-contra affair is ''paralyzing'' the administration.''I've been trying to send that signal, but while the president's under siege, you're not going to get a willing ear,'' said Chiles of the budget talks that have taken a back seat to the foreign affairs controversy. ''It's paralyzing the president, it's paralyzing the administration and Congress is preoccupied with it.''Chiles, D-Lakeland, became chairman of the Budget Committee when Democrats regained control of the Senate after last month's elections.

Regarding the July 18 editorial "It gets worse": The return of a budget deficit is unwelcome but unavoidable given the challenges we've endured. But the president has a plan to cut the deficit through a combination of strong economic growth and spending restraint. Thc main reason for the deficit is the revenue erosion caused by the lagging economy and previously weak stock market. In fact, the deficit would be $278 billion today had tax relief never happened, but the economy would be in far worse shape.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's fiscal 2005 budget proposals would reduce the deficit during the next five years, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday, but at the expense of an enormous increase in red ink in the five years after that. Bush had pledged that his plan would cut the annual deficit in half in five years, and White House projections of the effects of his proposals suggested he would meet that goal. The CBO estimated that the Bush budget would fall slightly short of that 50 percent reduction.

The latest projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office point out the folly of President George W. Bush's call for making permanent the tax cuts passed in the past three years. According to the CBO, the federal government could go $5 trillion deeper into debt over the next decade if Congress heeds the president's call. Even if the cuts expire, the red ink would still rise at least $2.4 trillion during the period. While the CBO predicted that keeping the tax cuts would add jobs and increase business investment, it also forecast that the resulting deficits would reduce national savings, decrease productivity and slow economic growth.